Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (2003)
United States v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (2003)
No. 02-4128
COUNSEL
Edward M. Hall, LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD HALL, Morgantown,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Thomas was convicted by a jury of possession with intent
to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841 (2000), and sentenced to fortyone months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised
release. Thomas attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether: (1) the district court abused its discretion by forbidding Thomas from presenting
evidence of "good motive;" (2) the district court committed reversible
error when it refused to continue the trial in order to allow Thomas
to investigate further an entrapment defense; and (3) Thomas was
denied effective assistance of counsel. Counsel concedes, however,
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although informed of
his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Thomas has not done so.
In April 1998, an inmate at FCI-Beckley informed the FBI that
Thomas, then a chaplain at FCI-Beckley, had smuggled marijuana
and other items into the prison where Thomas had previously been
assigned. After an investigation, a controlled purchase was arranged
between Thomas and an undercover police officer. Thomas was
arrested after receiving a package of heroin and $6000 in cash, as
arranged during recorded telephone conversations.
Thomas first contends that the district court erred in excluding the
admission of any evidence that he had a "good motive" for his conduct; i.e., that he was acting on the belief that he was helping investigate criminal activity in the prison. This court has explicitly rejected
any "good motive" defense to a violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a).
United States v. Fuller, 162 F.3d 256, 261 (4th Cir. 1998); see United
States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2000).
Thomas next contends that the district court erred in denying his
motion for a continuance to allow him to further investigate an
entrapment defense. In denying Thomas motion, the district court
found that Thomas had had ample timemore than eight monthsto
investigate all possible defenses and that his attorney had already considered an entrapment defense and concluded that it was inapplicable.
Based on these findings, we cannot say that the district court abused